14nm - Coinwelt

ETH Insider - Ethereum Forums, News, Trading & ICO's

ETH discussion board with a focus on ETH and ETH tokens. Alt-talk only if it is highly relevant for the current price. No FUD, No Hype, No Spamming. Thank you!
[link]

CryptoMods

Private subreddit for cryptocurrency moderators. "We are all in this together"
[link]

Crypto Insiders

Crypto discussion board with a focus on a variety of coins. No FUD, No Hype, No Spamming. Thank you!
[link]

BW Delays Public Sale of 14nm Bitcoin ASIC Miners

BW Delays Public Sale of 14nm Bitcoin ASIC Miners submitted by UbX27 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Interview: Syan Technologies CTO Koji Tanaka on Their Cool New 14nm Bitcoin ASIC

Interview: Syan Technologies CTO Koji Tanaka on Their Cool New 14nm Bitcoin ASIC submitted by bitnewsbot to bitnewsbot [link] [comments]

04-08 11:21 - 'Bw.com, 14nm Bitcoin Miners will be available from June - NEWSBTC' (newsbtc.com) by /u/bitcoin_andylee removed from /r/Bitcoin within 303-308min

Bw.com, 14nm Bitcoin Miners will be available from June - NEWSBTC
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: bitcoin_andylee
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

BW Delays Public Sale of 14nm Bitcoin ASIC Miners

BW Delays Public Sale of 14nm Bitcoin ASIC Miners submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bw.com, 14nm Bitcoin Miners will be available from June - NEWSBTC

Bw.com, 14nm Bitcoin Miners will be available from June - NEWSBTC submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Remember when Bitcoin miners attacked bitcoin by moving from 28nm chips to 14nm chips?

Greg Maxwell remembers.
submitted by BeijingBitcoins to btc [link] [comments]

AtoS : Arab Owned Syan Technologies finish tapeout for Bitcoin 14nm ASIC chips | 4-Traders

AtoS : Arab Owned Syan Technologies finish tapeout for Bitcoin 14nm ASIC chips | 4-Traders submitted by thrwy2357 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Syan Technologies Becomes Latest Entrant to Bitcoin ASIC Manufacturers with it's 14nm Vega Miner

Syan Technologies Becomes Latest Entrant to Bitcoin ASIC Manufacturers with it's 14nm Vega Miner submitted by NimbleBodhi to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

AtoS : Arab Owned Syan Technologies finish tapeout for Bitcoin 14nm ASIC chips | 4-Traders

AtoS : Arab Owned Syan Technologies finish tapeout for Bitcoin 14nm ASIC chips | 4-Traders submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Syan Technologies Becomes Latest Entrant to Bitcoin ASIC Manufacturers with it's 14nm Vega Miner

Syan Technologies Becomes Latest Entrant to Bitcoin ASIC Manufacturers with it's 14nm Vega Miner submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Remember when Bitcoin miners attacked bitcoin by moving from 28nm chips to 14nm chips? /r/btc

Remember when Bitcoin miners attacked bitcoin by moving from 28nm chips to 14nm chips? /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Intel reveals 14nm PC - Bitcoin mining hardware wars will likely stay exciting for a while...

Intel reveals 14nm PC - Bitcoin mining hardware wars will likely stay exciting for a while... submitted by chriswilmer to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: How is it that AMDs 14nm parts consume so much power? /r/Amd

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: How is it that AMDs 14nm parts consume so much power? /Amd submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

World first 14nm ASIC Utilization for Bitcoin Mining!

Indiegogo campaign link THE WORLDS FIRST 14NM ASIC BITCOIN MINERS! 14.4TH/S! http://igg.me/p/822701/x/7788425
submitted by knuckles609 to investing [link] [comments]

China’s Biggest Chip Maker Plans To Raise $2,8 Billion In An IPO

China’s Biggest Chip Maker Plans To Raise $2,8 Billion In An IPO

Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC) Partnered With Mining Rig Manufacturer Canaan Amid Further U.S – China Tensions
The largest silicon chip producer in China, SMIC, filed a $2,8 billion IPO proposal in partnership with Bitcoin mining rig producer Canaan. The filing comes amid increased trade tension between China and the United States.
On May 15, the U.S. Department of Commerce imposed further bans on Huawei, stating that all non-U.S. chip makers, which use U.S. technology, have to undergo a licensing procedure. The restrictions, however, attacked not only Huawei but also Taiwan’s largest chip-making facility - Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), which made the company stop orders to Huawei. Also on May 15, TSMC announced its plans to deploy a $12 billion chip production plant in the state of Arizona.
Meanwhile, the Chinese government gave SMIC a state boost of $2,2 billion, and with the added IPO funds, SMIC will be on the lookout for new tech and production innovations. However, China’s 14nm tech advancements still lack the 5nm chip production plans of Taiwan’s TSMC.
Interestingly, the 14nm technology of SMIC is well-suited for Canaan’s Bitcoin mining rig manufacturing. The two companies announced a strategic partnership, which would allow SMIC to become a leader in the manufacturing of microchips in the East Asia region.
Crypto mining expert Kristy-Leigh Minehan stated that despite “SMIC has to catch up with the recent advancements, SMIC would be seen as a domestic alternative to Samsung and TSMC.”
“SMIC would provide a boost in ASIC mining rigs for the altcoin market as well. China leads the pack for altcoin demand, so it won’t be strange if we have an ASIC chip, dedicated to a specific cryptocurrency.”, Minehan added.
Minehan also noted that the forthcoming IPO would be “successful”, as China needs a cutting-edge chip manufacturing facility, which eventually would serve the international crypto mining industry. The crypto mining expert also considers that further SMIC-oriented partnerships, including a Huawei-SMIC mobile phone, compatible with China’s DC/EP stablecoin project.
submitted by Crypto_Browser to CryptoBrowser_EN [link] [comments]

Obelisk's Sia ASICs - Full Details

https://obelisk.tech
Sia is releasing a 28nm, full-custom ASIC. This ASIC will be a complete package, similar to an antminer. You will receive a mining box that includes chips, power supplies, etc. Minimal setup will be required to get the miner working.
The miner is in early development already. We have begun the process of chip design, hardware design, and supply chain management. We have had conversations with previous ASIC manufacturers, and we have been warned about delays, unexpected costs, and myriads of pitfalls that throw off estimations. For this reason, we have set a conservative shipping date of June 2018. If the miners are ready sooner, they will be shipped sooner. If all goes well (and it rarely does, especially for first time manufacturers), we could see the miners shipping before March 2018.
Following the presale, we will be posting a development roadmap on our website that includes all the major steps of development. We will be crossing off steps in the roadmap as we complete them, which will allow the community to follow our progress, have visibility into delays, and will be able to see the places where we are ahead of or behind schedule.
The estimated hashrate is 100 GH/s. We will not know the exact hashrate until later in the development process, however we have confidence that 100 GH/s is a low bar to hit. We may end up shipping miners with a much higher hashrate, and will continue updating the estimated hashrate as we get more accurate estimates for how the chips will perform. The estimated power draw is 500w, though it may be significantly less.
The price of the unit is going to be $2499. Chip manufacturing is expensive, supply chains are expensive, and there are a lot of single-time costs that go into making miners. Future batches will likely have lower prices, however they will also ship later.
We will be selling the miners for Bitcoin. We expect the sale volume to be very large (in the tens of millions of dollars), and we feared that the Sia cryptocurrency would not have enough liquidity to handle all of that volume, resulting in the price rising quickly as people scramble to buy Siacoin for the ASIC, and then the price falling quickly as we convert the Siacoin to USD. This is the worst of both worlds - participants buy the siacoin at a premium, and then we sell them at a discount. Bitcoin has much, much deeper liquidity, and we can sell large volume of Bitcoin quickly without moving the price too much.
We will be converting the Bitcoin to USD as fast as possible. If the price fluctuates by more than 5% before we are able to convert, we will need to request more coins to cover the difference, or cancel the order. If the price fluctuates upwards by more than 5% before we convert, we will return the difference.
The sale and shipment of ASICs on the Sia network is going to dramatically increase the hashrate. When considering how much revenue you may get from a unit, please take into account the fact that we are selling enough units to potentially 10x or 100x the difficulty. If another ASIC manufacturer decides to start selling Sia ASICs, the hashrate may go up by more than just the number of units we sell. Please also consider that the block reward is decreasing. Today, the block reward is about 189,000 siacoins per block. By June 2018, our ship date, the block reward is going to be closer to 135,000 siacoins per block, decreasing by 1 siacoin per block (or 4320 siacoins per month).
The presale will be open for 7 days. There is no rush - people who buy on the fourth day will receive the same treatment as people who buy on the first day. The sale will not close early, and while we reserve the right to deny purchases, we have chosen not to put a cap on the number of units sold. We may pre-sell additional batches before the first batch ships. The first batch will have priority when we begin shipping, and if the later batches will be shipping shortly after, those later batches will be sold at a higher price. People who buy in on the first batch will receive both price preference and shipping date preference as a reward for taking on the most risk.
Obelisk is the company that will be producing these chips. Obelisk is a fully owned subsidiary of Nebulous Inc. Nebulous is the company that employs all of the Sia core developers.
Obelisk has plans for growth in the future. None of these plans are finalized as we are primarily focusing on shipping this miner, but potential future products include:
Finally, we plan to introduce decentralized mining pools into the Sia ecosystem before we ship the miners. Hosts will have the option of running their own mining pool, and then miners can detect the hosts by checking the blockchain and the peer network, forming payment channel contracts with them and participating in fully decentralized mining. This should help alleviate the pool centralization that is seen in most PoW cryptocurrencies.
We are very excited about our new company, and hope that you share in our excitement. Feel free to ask any questions.
submitted by Taek42 to siacoin [link] [comments]

Technical Cryptonight Discussion: What about low-latency RAM (RLDRAM 3, QDR-IV, or HMC) + ASICs?

The Cryptonight algorithm is described as ASIC resistant, in particular because of one feature:
A megabyte of internal memory is almost unacceptable for the modern ASICs. 
EDIT: Each instance of Cryptonight requires 2MB of RAM. Therefore, any Cryptonight multi-processor is required to have 2MB per instance. Since CPUs are incredibly well loaded with RAM (ie: 32MB L3 on Threadripper, 16 L3 on Ryzen, and plenty of L2+L3 on Skylake Servers), it seems unlikely that ASICs would be able to compete well vs CPUs.
In fact, a large number of people seem to be incredibly confident in Cryptonight's ASIC resistance. And indeed, anyone who knows how standard DDR4 works knows that DDR4 is unacceptable for Cryptonight. GDDR5 similarly doesn't look like a very good technology for Cryptonight, focusing on high-bandwidth instead of latency.
Which suggests only an ASIC RAM would be able to handle the 2MB that Cryptonight uses. Solid argument, but it seems to be missing a critical point of analysis from my eyes.
What about "exotic" RAM, like RLDRAM3 ?? Or even QDR-IV?

QDR-IV SRAM

QDR-IV SRAM is absurdly expensive. However, its a good example of "exotic RAM" that is available on the marketplace. I'm focusing on it however because QDR-IV is really simple to describe.
QDR-IV costs roughly $290 for 16Mbit x 18 bits. It is true Static-RAM. 18-bits are for 8-bits per byte + 1 parity bit, because QDR-IV is usually designed for high-speed routers.
QDR-IV has none of the speed or latency issues with DDR4 RAM. There are no "banks", there are no "refreshes", there are no "obliterate the data as you load into sense amplifiers". There's no "auto-charge" as you load the data from the sense-amps back into the capacitors.
Anything that could have caused latency issues is gone. QDR-IV is about as fast as you can get latency-wise. Every clock cycle, you specify an address, and QDR-IV will generate a response every clock cycle. In fact, QDR means "quad data rate" as the SRAM generates 2-reads and 2-writes per clock cycle. There is a slight amount of latency: 8-clock cycles for reads (7.5nanoseconds), and 5-clock cycles for writes (4.6nanoseconds). For those keeping track at home: AMD Zen's L3 cache has a latency of 40 clocks: aka 10nanoseconds at 4GHz
Basically, QDR-IV BEATS the L3 latency of modern CPUs. And we haven't even begun to talk software or ASIC optimizations yet.

CPU inefficiencies for Cryptonight

Now, if that weren't bad enough... CPUs have a few problems with the Cryptonight algorithm.
  1. AMD Zen and Intel Skylake CPUs transfer from L3 -> L2 -> L1 cache. Each of these transfers are in 64-byte chunks. Cryptonight only uses 16 of these bytes. This means that 75% of L3 cache bandwidth is wasted on 48-bytes that would never be used per inner-loop of Cryptonight. An ASIC would transfer only 16-bytes at a time, instantly increasing the RAM's speed by 4-fold.
  2. AES-NI instructions on Ryzen / Threadripper can only be done one-per-core. This means a 16-core Threadripper can at most perform 16 AES encryptions per clock tick. An ASIC can perform as many as you'd like, up to the speed of the RAM.
  3. CPUs waste a ton of energy: there's L1 and L2 caches which do NOTHING in Cryptonight. There are floating-point units, memory controllers, and more. An ASIC which strips things out to only the bare necessities (basically: AES for Cryptonight core) would be way more power efficient, even at ancient 65nm or 90nm designs.

Ideal RAM access pattern

For all yall who are used to DDR4, here's a special trick with QDR-IV or RLDRAM. You can pipeline accesses in QDR-IV or RLDRAM. What does this mean?
First, it should be noted that Cryptonight has the following RAM access pattern:
QDR-IV and RLDRAM3 still have latency involved. Assuming 8-clocks of latency, the naive access pattern would be:
  1. Read
  2. Stall
  3. Stall
  4. Stall
  5. Stall
  6. Stall
  7. Stall
  8. Stall
  9. Stall
  10. Write
  11. Stall
  12. Stall
  13. Stall
  14. Stall
  15. Stall
  16. Stall
  17. Stall
  18. Stall
  19. Read #2
  20. Stall
  21. Stall
  22. Stall
  23. Stall
  24. Stall
  25. Stall
  26. Stall
  27. Stall
  28. Write #2
  29. Stall
  30. Stall
  31. Stall
  32. Stall
  33. Stall
  34. Stall
  35. Stall
  36. Stall
This isn't very efficient: the RAM sits around waiting. Even with "latency reduced" RAM, you can see that the RAM still isn't doing very much. In fact, this is why people thought Cryptonight was safe against ASICs.
But what if we instead ran four instances in parallel? That way, there is always data flowing.
  1. Cryptonight #1 Read
  2. Cryptonight #2 Read
  3. Cryptonight #3 Read
  4. Cryptonight #4 Read
  5. Stall
  6. Stall
  7. Stall
  8. Stall
  9. Stall
  10. Cryptonight #1 Write
  11. Cryptonight #2 Write
  12. Cryptonight #3 Write
  13. Cryptonight #4 Write
  14. Stall
  15. Stall
  16. Stall
  17. Stall
  18. Stall
  19. Cryptonight #1 Read #2
  20. Cryptonight #2 Read #2
  21. Cryptonight #3 Read #2
  22. Cryptonight #4 Read #2
  23. Stall
  24. Stall
  25. Stall
  26. Stall
  27. Stall
  28. Cryptonight #1 Write #2
  29. Cryptonight #2 Write #2
  30. Cryptonight #3 Write #2
  31. Cryptonight #4 Write #2
  32. Stall
  33. Stall
  34. Stall
  35. Stall
  36. Stall
Notice: we're doing 4x the Cryptonight in the same amount of time. Now imagine if the stalls were COMPLETELY gone. DDR4 CANNOT do this. And that's why most people thought ASICs were impossible for Cryptonight.
Unfortunately, RLDRAM3 and QDR-IV can accomplish this kind of pipelining. In fact, that's what they were designed for.

RLDRAM3

As good as QDR-IV RAM is, its way too expensive. RLDRAM3 is almost as fast, but is way more complicated to use and describe. Due to the lower cost of RLDRAM3 however, I'd assume any ASIC for CryptoNight would use RLDRAM3 instead of the simpler QDR-IV. RLDRAM3 32Mbit x36 bits costs $180 at quantities == 1, and would support up to 64-Parallel Cryptonight instances (In contrast, a $800 AMD 1950x Threadripper supports 16 at the best).
Such a design would basically operate at the maximum speed of RLDRAM3. In the case of x36-bit bus and 2133MT/s, we're talking about 2133 / (Burst Length4 x 4 read/writes x 524288 inner loop) == 254 Full Cryptonight Hashes per Second.
254 Hashes per second sounds low, and it is. But we're talking about literally a two-chip design here. 1-chip for RAM, 1-chip for the ASIC/AES stuff. Such a design would consume no more than 5 Watts.
If you were to replicate the ~5W design 60-times, you'd get 15240 Hash/second at 300 Watts.

RLDRAM2

Depending on cost calculations, going cheaper and "making more" might be a better idea. RLDRAM2 is widely available at only $32 per chip at 800 MT/s.
Such a design would theoretically support 800 / 4x4x524288 == 95 Cryptonight Hashes per second.
The scary part: The RLDRAM2 chip there only uses 1W of power. Together, you get 5 Watts again as a reasonable power-estimate. x60 would be 5700 Hashes/second at 300 Watts.
Here's Micron's whitepaper on RLDRAM2: https://www.micron.com/~/media/documents/products/technical-note/dram/tn4902.pdf . RLDRAM3 is the same but denser, faster, and more power efficient.

Hybrid Cube Memory

Hybrid Cube Memory is "stacked RAM" designed for low latency. As far as I can tell, Hybrid Cube memory allows an insane amount of parallelism and pipelining. It'd be the future of an ASIC Cryptonight design. The existence of Hybrid Cube Memory is more about "Generation 2" or later. In effect, it demonstrates that future designs can be lower-power and give higher-speed.

Realistic ASIC Sketch: RLDRAM3 + Parallel Processing

The overall board design would be the ASIC, which would be a simple pipelined AES ASIC that talks with RLDRAM3 ($180) or RLDRAM2 ($30).
Its hard for me to estimate an ASIC's cost without the right tools or design. But a multi-project wafer like MOSIS offers "cheap" access to 14nm and 22nm nodes. Rumor is that this is roughly $100k per run for ~40 dies, suitable for research-and-development. Mass production would require further investments, but mass production at the ~65nm node is rumored to be in the single-digit $$millions or maybe even just 6-figures or so.
So realistically speaking: it'd take ~$10 Million investment + a talented engineer (or team of engineers) who are familiar with RLDRAM3, PCIe 3.0, ASIC design, AES, and Cryptonight to build an ASIC.

TL;DR:

submitted by dragontamer5788 to Monero [link] [comments]

Proof-of-work has the nice property that it can be relayed through untrusted middlemen. We don’t have to worry about a chain of custody of communication. It doesn’t matter who tells you a longest chain, the proof-of-work speaks for itself. • /r/Satoshi_Nakamoto

submitted by satoshi_says to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Mining difficulty is now 267,731,249 (+41%)

Mining difficulty is now 267,731,249 (+41%) submitted by Dansuke to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Introducing the BW 14nm ASIC chip: BW-LK1401

Introducing the BW 14nm ASIC chip: BW-LK1401 submitted by BitBankRoller to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

My response to the Dev Fork decision

Since I penned the original Community Fork proposal, I felt the need to address the decision to fork and the medium post attempting to justify the radical departure from what the community sought. The italics are quotes from the post, the following text is mine.

The first several statements are in regard to what happened in January.

The core developers ultimately decided against forking.
--
This statement sets the table by clearly laying out what happened in January with a statement the project is centralized as Nebulous went against the community in not forking then. The same holds true on today's statement.

Decentralization is valuable because there is nobody in control, and we weren’t comfortable releasing an update that threatened to rip the community in half.
--
In other words, we asserted control and made a highly centralized decision to protect the community. It is Orwellian in attempting to explain that war is peace.

ironically the people leaving in the largest droves were those who most aggressively opposed the fork during the earlier debates
--
Even if evidence existed to determine this, it's doubtful. The people most active against the fork were A3 purchasers and those people had ROI to meet. Even if they decided the Discord was a bit toxic, they still fulfilled a role securing the network. The author frequently makes assertions that cannot be defended with fact.

Sia’s biggest supporters and believers were the ones that got hit hardest by the mining catastrophe, and despite this loss, they were also the ones who stuck through the hardest times.
--
What did they lose? Obelisks wouldn't ship for another 9 months. How was it a catastrophe? Was the network ever at risk? The use of hyperbole here is indicative of the lack of a serious argument.

They (innosilicon) have the only 14nm miner on the market, and as such they have the only rig capable of competing. Without competition, there is no price pressure, and it seems that there is close to, if not above, a 100% markup on their hardware. For every machine that gets sold, Innosilicon makes enough profit to produce a machine for themselves to mine.
--
The suggestion is that a highly competent manufacturer fairly competing to create the best possible solution is somehow in the wrong. It then goes on to suggest that gaining a financial reward for being highly competent is somehow wrong and further intimates the profits must be reinvested into working the Sia chain. In fact, Innosilicon didn't have an overly large hashrate until the discussion of a fork seemed inevitable. It seems reasonable they dumped the totality of their inventory online because they would not be able to sell them once a fork occurred. Arguing against capitalism and the freedom to earn profits is a dangerous slope, perhaps revealing underlying political motivations of the author.

For an ASIC that is going to obsolete existing hardware, margins can be anywhere from 50% to 100%. The story is different however for ASICs that intend to compete without being strong enough to become the new monopoly. For these machines, margins are likely to be less than 25% because the presence of competition heavily forces prices downwards.
--
The argument here is to somehow seek to fight Moore's Law. Just as GPUs defeated CPUs and ASICs defeated GPUs, the strongest ASICs will prevail. There are several manufacturers that can be sought out to compete if the result is a single dominant model. More importantly, Innosilicon sells the majority of it's mining rigs to decentralize the hashrate. A single dominant manufacturer does not guarantee or even make more likely the hashrate will centralize. Finally, seeking to protect less than competent or financially competitive manufacturers runs counter to much of the Satoshi manifesto.

When a manufacturer is also a miner, there is an incentive against manufacturing and selling more machines.
--
The Bitmain financials clearly show the company makes the overwhelming amount of their profitability on miner sales, not mining. This is likely true for nearly all coins as mining quickly becomes close to breakeven. Even the author later admits the margins on hardware make for a lucrative business model.

High manufacturer diversity is currently limited by the extreme barriers to entry...we like to see manufacturers that share the knowledge and encourage a vibrant competitive environment.
--
In no industry that I am aware of is sharing of proprietary knowledge common and especially not in highly competitive and extremely capital intensive industries. It's beyond naive to believe this should be a goal. The post continues with other hurdles that no rational enterprise would accept without some sort of regulatory framework. It cannot be fairly policed as we are seeing here. The author has made several statements based on conjecture and formulated a punishment with the entities having no rights of appeal or even an advance guideline to follow that would have avoided the issues.

For the Sia network, an important line was crossed when secret ASIC projects superseded a public project that had substantial community investment.
--
This may be accurate to the author but such a line was never laid out for the public and as such, crossing it cannot be penalized unjustly.

Sia did not fork initially because there was a lot of confusion, a lot of emotion, and a great fear that the heavy conflicts of interest would cause the development team to make the wrong decision. Since then, there has been time for emotions to cool, for level heads to prevail, and for a second community fork proposal to come forward. Unlike the first fork proposal by the community, this second proposal experienced widespread support and virtually no opposition at all from regular members of the community.
--
This is accurate in stating the Community Fork proposal enjoyed widespread support. it is totally off base in suggesting the Dev Fork even resembles the CF. This is using the community as a human shield due to the overwhelming lack of an argument. My guess is that the Dev Fork would not meet with anything near the kind of support the CF enjoyed.

Sia is forking today to reprimand the current ASIC monopoly for the damage it did to the Sia community, to make whole the supporters of Sia’s community ASIC project, and to send a clear message to all future Sia ASIC manufacturers: we will not tolerate an abusive ASIC monopoly.
--
Which is sort of a heavy handed way of saying there is one final boss at Sia and you made him mad to the point that he must now "reprimand" you. The items characterized as abusive were never outlined in advance and are highly debatable as to whether they actually are abusive, but again, Final Boss.

We fully expect that the 28nm Obelisk ASICs will be replaced by a 16nm chip from another manufacturer, who will become the new manufacturing monopoly for Sia... the Sia community is not afraid to take action a second time to break a parasitic or abusive ASIC monopoly.
--
Hopefully any manufacturer understands the shifting sands that exist within the Sia leadership could decide virtually any action to be harmful as there has been zero harm done up to now. There have been no attacks, no overt centralization and plenty of supporters own/mine with these company's devices.

Sia is an ungoverned blockchain. There is no built-in mechanism on the Sia network to change the consensus rules, and there is no mechanism in the software that the developers can use to force people to upgrade. The only way that Nebulous can encourage a fork is to release new code, and then encourage people to upgrade.
This leaves people with the opportunity to reject the upgrade, and to instead continue using the old software and the old blockchain. If enough people rally around the old software, there could be a network split, and Sia could divide into two blockchains, in the same way that Ethereum split into Ethereum and Ethereum Classic, and in the same way that Bitcoin became Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash.
At Nebulous, we view these cryptocurrency splits as one of the most powerful innovations of the blockchain space. Under traditional governance structures, a single decision gets made and everyone has to live with that decision. But when the network is able to split, you can get solutions where two groups of people with incompatible demands can both get what they want.
We will be structuring the Sia hardfork code to enable a group of dissenters to easily split off and be on a separate blockchain where the hardfork was never implemented. The hardfork will be released as its own release, v1.3.6, where the only code updated is a handful of lines of code + tests required to implement the hardfork. The code will be implemented in a way that easily allows a dissenting group to remove the hardfork code and yet continue merging changes that are made to the primary Sia repo. So long as the siafund ownership is maintained on this fork, members of the dissenting community will be welcome in the Sia community, on the Sia discord, on the subreddit, and will be able to receive support and help directly from the Nebulous support staff.
Perhaps the most amazing thing about a potential Sia network split is that all users will be able to continue to use their current files that they have on Sia. Uploads and downloads will continue to work, no matter what side of the split you are on, and so long as the minority side of the split has enough hosts (50–80 is what most users will require), the repair mechanisms of the Sia network will be able to repair your files from across both networks and ensure that your files continue working into the future. If the minority side of the fork does not have enough hosts, users will have time (most users will have several weeks) after the split to download their files and find an alternative way to back them up.
--
These paragraphs are simply amazing. The author appears to be goading people resistant to his iron control over the project to continue the legacy chain. While this makes sense if you are simply building a protocol and have no interest in marketing and selling the tech to say, Fortune 1000 companies, it is a terrible message if you do plan to. You are seeking community schism, making a competitive environment for hosting when hosting is already horribly unprofitable and seeking to sow chaos in how the network evolves into the future. The logical approach would be to let dedicated foes seek out the info on their own if there is a desire to work the legacy chain, not encourage it. It continues to show the author, while a strong technologist is a weak business individual.

we like to see is low margins for miners and manufacturers. When there are high margins, at least one player (the benefactor of the high margins) is able to acquire hashrate more cheaply than everyone else, and therefore is able to more easily attack the network.
--
What is the evidence and argument here? That people with more money are more able to attack? People with large trust funds are equally likely to be more able to attack. High profit margins simply indicate a competent agency, nothing more.

ASIC manufacturers ultimately exist to serve the network, and specifically to protect the network against 51% attacks.
--
ASIC manufacturers exist to serve their customers, full stop. They have no role or responsibility to the network at all. Increasing a circle of responsibility to an entity with no control over how their products are used is silly.

Overall, I am disappointed the team chose to ignore the Community Fork proposal in order to run their own fork. But, this is a Nebulous project and ultimately they can do whatever they want. They cannot assert decentralization though and very little about this current action suggests there is a long term goal of decentralization. Decisions to exclude some faction today will most certainly arise down the road as the team concludes that certain storage customers or developers or vendors are unacceptable for various reasons. This hasn't even discussed the awkward part of the equation where Obelisk is owned by the author and stands to gain now and in the future when more powerful, 2nd gen ASICs can be created and no outside manufacturers wanting to risk losing on the Sia project.

The point of the post is to attempt to continue to get Mr. Vorick to recognize the issues with his sole governance of the Sia project. Even the most ill-willed posts from various authors have a goal of improving the project. It is hoped that at some point, Vorick will recognize his project is stronger with community participation, even to the point of going along with community desires sometimes even if it runs counter to his own desires. There is value in learning to negotiate. You learn what to give away and what is sacrosanct. In the end, the project will grow much stronger and there will be copious numbers of supporters ready to do battle against the hyper-competitive world of cloud storage.
submitted by FaustianAGI to siacoin [link] [comments]

A Short Response to AdoredTV's "How Nvidia Won and AMD Lost the GPU War"

AdoredTV claims of booming sales for AMD with the fastest gaming GPU in 2011 are contradicted by two errors!

As everyone knows, the biggest disruptive event for PC gaming GPUs sales happened in October 2010 - the first public release of GPU mining code for Bitcoin Network. Yes, a lot of new high-end AMD GPUs where being bought up by crypto-currency miners from that point onwards. Therefore, the new business sales data includes a lot of sales to people starting off the crypto-currency GPU mining scene - booming sales of GPUs for AMD.

When we look at the Steam Hardware Survey for the years 2010 and 2011:
Nvidia: 59.11%
ATI (AMD): 32.98%
Today, Desktop GPU shipments by Nvidia and AMD are:
Nvidia 65%-70%
AMD 30%-35%
Varying according to how much risk each business takes on unsold inventory.

That entire period of ATI (AMD) releasing faster and faster gaming GPUs resulted in a very tiny 5% change in market share and the emergence of crypto-currency mining was the principal reason for increased new business sales of high-end gaming GPUs.

Towards the end, AdoredTV seems to not understand business commitments at different price segments.

Polaris on 12nm is a required product, which AdoredTV simply refuses to accept. Polaris on 12nm is required by Apple, AMD's AIB partners and OEMs. At, the $170 to $250 AMD has to offer an improved product each year.

This is Polaris statistics:
Driver Optimisations +8% performance 1st year and -3% 2nd year, net gain 5%.
Polaris 14nm architectural tweaks +8% performance 500 series.
Polaris 12nm node shrink and tweaks +12% performance.

That is going to be 25% performance change over 2 years at $170 to $250 price point at no extra cost to the end users who are only willing to spend under $250 on a gaming GPU. That is what PC gamers expect: a 25% performance increase over a 2 year period at the same pricing.

This is the essential problem with AdoredTV: AMD delivers exactly what customers asked for e.g. more performance at the same prices (incrementally).
AdoredTV get's upset and says: "your gonna lose no matter what".
Nvidia charges more money for performance people use to get for free every two years and AdoredTV says "people are gonna buy it no matter what".

The sales of new desktop GPU shipments will stay around the same percentages, Nvidia customers will simply be a bit poorer and AMD customers will simply be a bit richer.

And, all of AMD Subreddit would rather be in the latter group, than the former group.

Discuss
submitted by balbs10 to Amd [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Ebit Miner E10 with 10nm Chip Review KUANGCHENG Ebit E9 Plus 9T Bitcoin Miner Newest ... Best KUANGCHENG Ebit E9 Plus 9T Bitcoin Miner USED 14nm ... A4 14NM Litecoin miner 136MH/s 520wat Review KUANGCHENG Ebit E9 Plus 9T Bitcoin Miner Newest ...

This new Bitcoin ASIC will use the 14nm FinFet process and the power consumption target is 0.3J/Ghash at chip level. Black Arrow has enlarged the team that made Minion ASIC a success and now has obtained support from one of the leading foundry that is able to tape out 14nm FinFet. Work has already started on the backend of the chip in order to port the Minion RTL into 14nm process. Black Arrow ... Der BW 14nm Bitcoin Mining Chip. Das Interesse an diesem neuen BW Bitcoin Mining Chip richtet sich nach dem Aussehen der Dinge ist eine größere Nachfrage als das Angebot vorerst. Für Unternehmen wie BW ist dies eine gute Sache, da sie die erste Charge ihrer neuen Bitcoin-Minen auf Basis des 14-nm-Chips ausverkauft haben. Aber das ist nicht die einzige gute Nachricht. Zusammen mit diesen ... Previous BW verschiebt öffentlichen Verkauf von 14nm Bitcoin ASIC Minern. Related Articles. Mexikanische Steuerfahndung: Banken sind ein Risiko für Geldwäsche. 31. August 2020. Hacker stehlen 16 Millionen Dollar an Bitcoin über alte Software in Wallet. 31. August 2020. Mit dieser Strategie kann jeder ein erfolgreicher Bitcoin-Investor werden . 30. August 2020. Check Also ... Bitmain Unveils 2 Bitcoin Miners With Max Speeds Up to 110TH/s Per Unit ... Although, the last machine Bitfury released does process 80TH/s and it utilizes more efficient 14nm chips. But it ... The quiet, behind-the-scenes juggernaut in bitcoin mining, Bi Wang (BW), is announcing the release of its 14nm chip that the company believes is at the cutting edge of bitcoin mining equipment.. In a Bitcoin Magazine exclusive, BW was introduced to the community.Now it wants impact that same community. Along with the announcement of its bitcoin chip, the company has announced that it will be ...

[index] [10692] [19579] [22916] [9261] [22620] [3711] [7410] [676] [45596] [18869]

Bitcoin Ebit Miner E10 with 10nm Chip

https://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/_dYEll9I - Get This Produk KUANGCHENG Ebit E9 Plus 9T Bitcoin Miner Newest 14nm Asic Miner Btc Miner Better Than Antminer S7... A4-135 Specifications: 1. Hash Rate: 135MH/s ±2% 2. Power Consumption: 520w 3. Rated Voltage: 11.60 ~13.00V 4. Chip quantity per unit: 40x A4 14nm https://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/_d7d2vQx KUANGCHENG Ebit E9 Plus 9T Bitcoin Miner USED 14nm Asic Miner Btc Miner Better Than Antminer S7 Equivalent to Antmi... 🔴 Bitcoin & Stocks LIVE : XRP PUMPING GET TRIGGERED! 🔴 Ep. 918 Crypto Technical Analysis Mitch Ray 789 watching Live now The 20 Rules of Money - Duration: 25:28. Previously it was E9 Pus Now it is E10 coming soon for order contact +971569755004 Product Introduction: Ebit Miner E9 Plus adopts the latest independent developed 14nm chip, ideal hash rate can ...

#